Wheres the logic?

Question

People keep saying that Global Warming is killing the po' po' little polar bears(which eat people fyi)!!!

Even though the Polar Bear population is up.. 500% since 1972...(Population then was ~5000 population now is ~25,000)

How can Mars also be experiencing Global Warming if we arent driving there?

Nuclear Power is proteste by Global Warming advocates, even though it is clean, safe, and efficient. Even one of the founders of Green Peace supports Nuclear Power. We all know how evil and conservative THEY are...

Most of the stuff in Al Gores movie is FAKE! The opening, where he is showing how melted the Arctic is, he used a COMPUTER GENERATED model, used in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" and one of the producers even said "Theres nothing real in there."

People use videos of polar bears on Ice in the middle of an ocean, saying how they're dying and oooooh poor them.. The polar bears they used where PLAYING! Man! How can people be so stupid?

This is probably gunna be reported...

Answer 1

i asked almost the same thing , and it did get reported, ,however i agree !

Answer 2

ACCORDING TO ME THIS REPORT SIMPLY TELLS US THAT LIVING CONDITIONS ARE BECOMING BETTER FOR HUMANS BUT RARE FOR ANIMALS.

Answer 3

isnt the sun getting bigger making the heat get absorbed by less things in space and it is probably summer in Mars

And recycling doesnt really help unless its metal trees are farmed 2 make paper and build stuff landfills actually help more than recycling like my friend says dont believe everything on t.v. it is government filtered thats why he calls it the tell-lie-vision becasue it is government lies

this duded above me probaly has government stuff lying to him

Answer 4

Current estimates on polar bear populations are 20000-25000 the population increase is down to the banning of unrestricted hunting in the 70s which was on the way to sending them extinct.

There is no evidence mars is warming, one of the poles is shrinking, most likely cause is dust storms, mars climate is totally different to Earths.

Nuclear is clean, sort of safe (three mile island) but is also subsidized by the billions and if the world switched to nuclear in a big way we would run out of fuel for the reactors in 20-30 years.

"The day after tomorrow" an excellent example of how deniers bend the facts, the scene from "TDAT" is a simple flyover of computer generated ice edge it is 53m into ICT and is simply used as a pretty, short showing ice, and it is Antarctica being talked about, not the Arctic and in TDAT it was also meant to be Antarctica.

I would never report this sort of a question as it is a good example of how weak the denier argument really are.

edit

70 tr 001

"He also said that the sea level would rise 20 feet. the UN AND the New York Times BOTH said that this was an exaggeration, and that it would be 20 inches at most."

I hadn't looked at ICT for about a year, and couldn't remember what was said exactly, so just did a quick refresh as to what was actually said, he made no mention of the UN forecast and did not predict that the sea would rise 20ft.

What was given was an example of what would happen if Greenland  broke up or if half of Greenland and half of the west Antarctic ice sheet broke up there would be a 20 foot sea rise and then the graphics of the cities followed no timeline was given. As an example, this is correct

Answer 5

global warming can affect more animals. did you ever hear of a food chain? if some thing stops growing in the water cause of warmer weather, then fish wont have any food, so they will die and then polar bears also wont have any food to eat.

and there's more benefits when living greener. many people have lung problems and they need to move out on the country side, cause they have troubles breathing in big cities.

Answer 6

I don't know about the polar bears, but the scientists do think they will decline rather fast without the ice.

Whatever the reason for Earthwarm, we will have to deal with it.

If you don't mind the fact, admitted by the NRC, that nuclear power will kill a large random number of people everywhere the plants and trucks are, then it's safe and clean. It's about as efficient as using a truck full of coal to heat up a pot of water, and the waste is deadly and will spread no matter how they store it. Do some real research and forget the idiots on the radio talk shows!

I have seen simulations which do show what the movie protrayed, and that model is not all that inaccurate either.

Why don't you take advantage of the internet and read the peer group mags available. You would get quite an education, much better than the radio chumps can give you.

Do your research. It's all available to you at a click of a mouse.

Answer 7

This is a good test for you - if you're truly interested in logic as you claim, you'll read my answer and learn from your errors.

1) Your info on polar bears is wrong.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/...

2) It hasn't been established that Mars is warming on a global scale, but if it is, it's because of dust storms darkening its surface.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...

3) Most "global warming advocates" don't protest nuclear power.  That's a strawman argument.

4) Most of 'An Inconvenient Truth' was accurate.

"The nation's top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/200...

Gore's film "is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact"

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/1...

5) See #1.  Plus Bush's Interior Department also disagrees with you.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24619887/

I'm sure you'll choose some answer that says 'ya dood, al gor is a dumbo!1!', but I hope you at least learn something from this.

Answer 8

I sure hope your question doesn't get reported, since you do bring up some good points in the main body of your question and your additions to your question. For one thing believers in AGW shouldn't call anyone out about picking a best answer from only those that have the same belief as them, since they do it all the time. I know from my own personal experience with them that this is true.

The main thing there isn't any logic to this AGW theory or what they claim is happening to Polar Bears. I also want to see a new report about how Antarctica fared over it's summer season, but I still can't find one and it's fall going on winter down there. That makes me believe nothing dramtic happened down there this year and they sure don't want to report that.

Oh and they believe the Arctic is already melting this year, but I highly doubt that since we've had blasts of frigid air from the Arctic this Spring causing us to have a shorter growing season up here in MN, since it only started to warm up and become Spring over the past couple of weeks and the official start of Summer is now only a month away.

Answer 9

Well, I agree with you that the current cute and cuddly emphasis on polar bears detracts from the real issues. Global warming has more serious effects on other animals and on people than this (see the recent article in the guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20... Sea levels have already risen 20 centimetres since pre-industrial times, and will likely continue to rise at an accelerating rate. Higher temperatures are also killing the coral reefs that protect many low-lying islands. So places like the Maldives are increasingly becoming threatened with flooding, and may be rendered uninhabitable within as little as 100 years (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,15...

Even these predictions are small compared to the ever-present threat of melting land ice. Given that the sea ice is already provably melting, we shouldn't necessarily expect land-based ice to last forever against increasing temperature. The problem with melting land ice is that it substantially raises sea levels. There is some good evidence that the melting process has already begun in Greenland and the Antactic peninsula. If it all melts (which may take several hundred years), then global sea levels will rise enough to drown Syndey, Auckland, London, New York, Los Angeles, all of Florida, Seattle, Shanghai, Mumbai, and in fact about 30% of our current population centres worldwide. We don't know when this will happen, although recent research by NASA suggests that the probable level of CO2 at which the Antarctic icecap will melt is around 425 ppm, which we are headed for in the next 10-15 years. The melting may then take hundreds after that, but once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, its difficult to get rid of it.

Of course, it helps to be well-informed on the issues. Al Gore is not by any means the only person saying this; indeed in the main he's just summarising the science which has existed for much longer than his film. You have been lied to by people in the pay of the oil industry, and more stupidly still, you have believed them. Perhaps you should take a look at this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ac...

In particular, you should read the stuff about Exxon, which is repeated in more detail here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...

So, without answering your question, let me ask another one... How does it feel to be wrong, because you couldn't spot an oil-industry sponsored lie, and swallowed it whole?

Answer 10

The simple fact that a large number of climatologists and meteorologists disagree with the Al Gore scenario should cast significant doubt on his proposition.

As mentioned several times, extraordinary suscpicion should be cast upon any scientific theory where you have a significant body of scientists opposed to it and the other side tries to settle the issue with rhetoric rather than subject themselves to open scientific debate.  

Good, confident scientists who believe in their theory actually welcome other scientists and their attempts to examine their work and welcome other scientists open dialogue on the issue.  The fact that Gore and his crowd have politically tried to squelch the debate should clearly demonstrate the weakness in their proposition and their fear of allowing an open scientific debate that might bring into question their theorems.